Jan and Klodi's Party Bus - part II **off topic discussion**

Beasty

The man himself in action, post his footie career and before he started ripping off Liverpool's working classes with exorbitant rents:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFUxMZRwvvI

RobFowl

Beasty wrote: »

Rob & Koutobia's hot soapy sauna?

FYP

Weepsie

Going by the other thread id have thought dark dungeon lair would have been in the title.

Chuchote

I was in (shudder) Ikea today, and hefted and sat up on one of their flatpack bikes. Surprisingly light and nice, despite my leprechaun-like size. And they had an extremely nice trailer http://www.ikea.com/ie/en/products/ikea-family-products/bicycle-bicycle-accessories/sladda-bicycle-trailer-art-50345641/ too, though it wasn't very clear exactly how it attached to the bike. They're currently selling the bike for roughly €450 and the trailer for €160.

magicbastarder

i was also in ikea today. that was a mistake. must be because the schools are still off. and them they announced they were having trouble with credit card payments. i was expecting mass panic.

Weepsie

Time to go to IKEA is Monday or Tuesday evening after 6. A far more pleasant experience

magicbastarder

we assumed 11am on a wednesday would be OK.
i got the hulk rage trying to buy light bulbs. what they have on the shelves vs. what the signs on the shelves indicate appears to be completely random. actually, worse, because the signs can be misleading.

though back to the bikes, my main concern would be customer support. what happens if you've a hub issue, for example? do they have staff who know how to deal with it?

Chuchote

magicbastarder wrote: »

we assumed 11am on a wednesday would be OK.
i got the hulk rage trying to buy light bulbs. what they have on the shelves vs. what the signs on the shelves indicate appears to be completely random. actually, worse, because the signs can be misleading.

though back to the bikes, my main concern would be customer support. what happens if you've a hub issue, for example? do they have staff who know how to deal with it?

I suspect the answer may be "feck, no" - I asked a couple of people how the trailer attached, and they told me to look for a yellow fellow from the department where it was selling.

But for goodness sake - it comes with its own spanner!

magicbastarder

Chuchote wrote: »

it comes with its own spanner!

are you referring to the fellow in yellow? (yellow fellow sounds unfortunate!)

magicbastarder

anyway, half the products in ikea come with a spanner.

Chuchote

magicbastarder wrote: »

are you referring to the fellow in yellow? (yellow fellow sounds unfortunate!)

An Buachallán Buí

Oh, damn you, boardsie coders! An Buachallan Bui!

Weepsie

magicbastarder wrote: »

anyway, half the products in ikea come with a spanner.

And they are sh!th spanners too

Chuchote

Weepsie wrote: »

And they are sh!th spanners too

The Spanner of the Sith: Revenge of the Yellow Fellow

bp_me

magicbastarder wrote: »

though back to the bikes, my main concern would be customer support. what happens if you've a hub issue, for example? do they have staff who know how to deal with it?

They have staff that know how to give you a new one....

tomasrojo

https://twitter.com/ianwalker/status/854986518905180160

Striking graph.

Commuting by bike strongly associated with lower mortality rates for heart disease and cancer. Does substantially better than walking, which is substantially better (in places anyway) than the low-activity forms of travel.

Weepsie

You would have to imagine it could only improve if more cycled and fewer drove. Fewer emissions would benefit all in many ways

seamus

Looking at some of the other values; there is a suggestion there (though with low confidence) that walking may actually be *more* risky than driving or taking the bus?

Am I reading that right?

tomasrojo

True. Even as things stand, I think cyclists have a lower exposure to most pollutants than car occupants, despite deeper breathing, because they're not permanently located right beside a large pollutant-emitting device for every second of their journey.

tomasrojo

seamus wrote: »

Looking at some of the other values; there is a suggestion there (though with low confidence) that walking may actually be *more* risky than driving or taking the bus?

Am I reading that right?

The confidence interval around walking encompasses the value for non-active modes in places, which means you don't have grounds to reject the null hypothesis that the differences between the two groups are due to chance. Which is a roundabout way of saying that the rate is pretty similar.

tomasrojo

As Ian Walker also tweeted, he's looking forward to the Daily Mail front page about Not Cycling Gives You Cancer

tomasrojo

Incidentally, the non-active modes don't have confidence intervals and are all aligned on 1.0, because the hazard ratios are using the non-active modes as a reference. So it goes without saying that the non-active modes have exactly the same distributions of values as ... the non-active modes.

Chuchote

tomasrojo wrote: »

True. Even as things stand, I think cyclists have a lower exposure to most pollutants than car occupants, despite deeper breathing, because they're not permanently located right beside a large pollutant-emitting device for every second of their journey.

And many cyclists take quiet, more car-free roads even though these routes take them a bit out of the way.

Here's the paper referenced, if no one else has already posted it

http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/138376/7/138376.pdf

Association between active commuting and incident
cardiovascular disease, cancer, and mortality: prospective
cohort study

CramCycle

I presume non active are motor vehicles only? Would love to see where the raw data was taken from.
I thought the interesting correlation with walking as a main mode of commuting being that you are less likely to get cancer but if you get it, you are more likely to die.
Another point being the cancer mortality stat, surely having the no of deaths over the number of incidences would also be relevant.
That is, if you are (fill in from mode below), and you have a cancer diagnosis, the likely hood of death due to the cancer is (percentage beside)
Non Active: 26.03%
Walking: 30.07%
Cycling: 28.08%
(this is a far higher mortality rate than I would have associated with cancers as a whole)
which is the headlines the Mail will go with, what they will fail to put in is the chances of getting cancer are identical for walkers to non active (1.84%) but 25% less if you are cyclist (1.4%).

My math maybe wrong.

Interesting also to see is it correlation or causation, as in are people who cycle of a certain physical and mental state that they are simply less likely to get cancer (so a correlation, it is nothing to do with cycling, just the group who were analysed), or are the benefits of exercise reasonable but people who walk are exposed to as much pollutants as non actives or is there a clearance benefit of more intense exercise.

Chuchote

By definition, people who are commuting are employed, so in general (forgetting about unhappy workplaces, etc) are likely to be under less stress than people who don't have work.

Weepsie

Does the study take into account diet, environment, smoking, drinking etc.

A lot of commutting cyclists tend to be leisure cyclists too or active in other sports. They watch diet a little more carefully I'd think, less likely to smoke and be all round more health conscious (except for the weekend cake eating)

If stating that just being active reduces risk well then the study in isolation is a bit pointless other than to maybe help some people cop on to what was obvious anyway. I can read it later when on a laptop i guess.

CramCycle

Chuchote wrote: »

By definition, people who are commuting are employed, so in general (forgetting about unhappy workplaces, etc) are likely to be under less stress than people who don't have work.

That is quite a characterisation, I know plenty of people who are employed who are consistently at their wits end, and I know people who have been unemployed for awhile and seem quite relaxed. I have other friends who would be the polar opposite.

tomasrojo

CramCycle wrote: »

I thought the interesting correlation with walking as a main mode of commuting being that you are less likely to get cancer but if you get it, you are more likely to die.

Judging by the confidence interval, I think the data is too noisy to confirm that. The lower bound is less than 1.0

CramCycle wrote: »

Another point being the cancer mortality stat, surely having the no of deaths over the number of incidences would also be relevant.

I think hazard ratios are the rate over the rate. As in, the percentage of walkers that die of cancer divided by the percentage of inactive commuters.

CramCycle wrote: »

Interesting also to see is it correlation or causation, as in are people who cycle of a certain physical and mental state that they are simply less likely to get cancer (so a correlation, it is nothing to do with cycling, just the group who were analysed), or are the benefits of exercise reasonable but people who walk are exposed to as much pollutants as non actives or is there a clearance benefit of more intense exercise.

These types of studies can't answer that, but as Ian Walker says, this is pretty much the same type of evidence that smoking is harmful. But the researchers
did control for confounding factors, such as underlying illnesses.

I haven't read it, so take anything I say with a pinch of salt.

tomasrojo

Weepsie wrote: »

Does the study take into account diet, environment, smoking, drinking etc.

I believe it does. Will try to read it later.

Weepsie wrote: »

If stating that just being active reduces risk well then the study in isolation is a bit pointless other than to maybe help some people cop on to what was obvious anyway.

The effect is nothing new, but it seems to be a very good study, and the apparent beneficial effect is huge.

tomasrojo

Sample size over 250,000, by the way!

Chuchote

CramCycle wrote: »

That is quite a characterisation, I know plenty of people who are employed who are consistently at their wits end, and I know people who have been unemployed for awhile and seem quite relaxed. I have other friends who would be the polar opposite.

I probably put it badly; what I mean is that working people - whatever other stresses they have - don't have the constant acidic burn of terror about money that is life on the dole.